American Politics during the Obama Presidency

"would like the O defenders to take a stand right now on this board and tell me the merits of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank"

Quakhunter, with all due respect, change your nicotine patch.

Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank. Obama inherited these people. You will get no argument from me about these scalawags. Can we really include them in a conversation about Obama?

For Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank and please include Dodd, those scalawags allowed this financial and diplomatic nightmare to happen and now take a hypocritical position, my view. I honestly believe the powers to be (Democrats) believed they could walk all over Obama. His own party was attempting undermined him with their own agendas in the beginning. Gratefully, Obama did / will not let that happen.

We are four months into this Obama thing and it seems Obama is responsible for about everything that has transpired over the past twenty years. Without a doubt, the deficits and debt scares the living hell out of me, but they at least have a plan. It cannot fix itself. The insanity of twenty years of spending and crazy behavior cannot be undone in a week or two.

Wish this thread had not taken on such a personal note, but it seems it has. You know what they say about politics and religion.

Well said Jackson. Every country acts in its own self interest (I believe it is called foreign policy) those who do not perish. Does anyone really give a damn if N. Korea, Iran, ect "like" us. I doubt it. The last time we had a president who wanted to do the "right thing" we got in deep shit, I believe his name was Jimmy Carter. He should have stuck to peanut farming because he was a total loss as a president. If you remember we got old Jimmy after the Nixon / Ford thing and everyone wanted to feel "good" again by electing a good Christian. Same thing with the Carmel One promising everyone everything. Well we may need a Christian for a leader but in this world he better be an Old Testiment kind of guy.

My 2 cents.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Rock you should respond to paragraphs 2 and 3, you write about this better than I do.

Appologies to the Cubbies.[/QUOTE]Thanks Daddy. But surprisingly I really don't care what happens to the capitalist oppressors of the proletariat. They can drown in pools of their own blood.

But the Cubs represent goodness, virtue and happiness for millions. They're fucking losers, but lovable.

[QUOTE=Damman]"would like the O defenders to take a stand right now on this board and tell me the merits of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank"

Quakhunter, with all due respect, change your nicotine patch.

Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank. Obama inherited these people. You will get no argument from me about these scalawags. Can we really include them in a conversation about Obama?[/QUOTE]Bullshit. Where does O'Bama differ on policy from these people? Who got him elected? Who are the ones acting like spoiled kids after Mommy and Daddy get divorced and the trust fund is released? The answer is yes, we can include them in a conversation about O'Bama. The same way the people who linked Bush with Cheney, Rove, DeLay, Limbaugh, Hannity with every breath. The only thing he inherited is the Nine Justices of the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE=Damman]We are four months into this Obama thing and it seems Obama is responsible for about everything that has transpired over the past twenty years. Without a doubt, the deficits and debt scares the living hell out of me, but they at least have a plan. It cannot fix itself. The insanity of twenty years of spending and crazy behavior cannot be undone in a week or two.[/QUOTE]No he is just responsible for the last hundred days. That includes a budget deficit forecasted to be a possible 80%+ of GDP (by the OMB's own forecast) from the current level of app. 39% GDP. (I may be off on that number) This is after campaigning against deficits and for the future of our children.

DM, there is no Nicotine patch; Bubba Clinton saved me from "Big Tobacco" and I don't smoke. Though I am down with the daily hummer in the office from fat girls like Bill, but I always make sure I clean up the evidence.

Personally, I think that he can not say that he is not responsible for what went on before he came into office as he was a sitting senator. He is just finding that he is now sitting in an office where he has to do more than vote "present".

People are finding that he is nothing more than an empty suit that will say whatever he thinks the people want to hear. And the people that voted for him will believe him because "Barry means well." But the reality is that being someone is more than the words that you speak.

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]

No he is just responsible for the last hundred days. That includes a budget deficit forecasted to be a possible 80%+ of GDP (by the OMB's own forecast) from the current level of app. 39% GDP. (I may be off on that number) This is after campaigning against deficits and for the future of our children. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Well said Jackson. Every country acts in its own self interest (I believe it is called foreign policy) those who do not perish. Does anyone really give a damn if N. Korea, Iran, ect "like" us. I doubt it. The last time we had a president who wanted to do the "right thing" we got in deep shit, I believe his name was Jimmy Carter. He should have stuck to peanut farming because he was a total loss as a president. If you remember we got old Jimmy after the Nixon / Ford thing and everyone wanted to feel "good" again by electing a good Christian. Same thing with the Carmel One promising everyone everything. Well we may need a Christian for a leader but in this world he better be an Old Testiment kind of guy.

My 2 cents.[/QUOTE]Just to clarify, does that mean that even when we are "wrong", we are still "right".

Well since the last 100 plus days or so it's become more of a challenge to day trade. DNDN was a good bump. Although a risky gamble. Hey, more Federal funding for stem cell research. Can't be all bad. In to some AIG as the Fed has a 18% interest and I can't see them giving away that much to let it all go now? Down to the last 150 billion of TARP money.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The neo-cons must be the last of a kind that actually believes the USA stands as a beacon of democracy in the world and has moral authority to tell other nations what to do. The majority of the citizens of the USA do not even believe this any longer; they know that the foreign policy of the USA has only been about money and "who gets what" for the past 100 years or more. The USA has never cared about democracy in any foreign state; the USA cares about which government of a foreign state is friendly and convenient to the economic interests of the USA and nothing more.

What Obama understands, and what the neo-cons never will, is that at this point, with zero credibility as a benevolent force in the region or anywhere else remaining, the USA needs to use soft power, diplomacy, and cooperation in order to better its relations with the other states of the Western Hemisphere and the world. The USA has failed to project its system upon many powerful and influencial states of the world and instead must now find ways to have a cooperative relationship with states and regimes that are philosophically, ideologically, and systematically different than the USA.

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Respectfully disagree.

First off, I don't think it's just misguided neo-cons who believe the US should work towards human rights in abusive societies. Our dear President just signed (I believe) the Cuban bill entitled: "Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba" - which by the way, will do nothing to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. Of course he may just choose the titles to fool those stupid neo-cons.

Secondly, while I agree with the other posters that countries have 'interests', I think one guiding interest of the US should be to promote freedom and human rights in other countries. Call me idealistic or stupid if you will, but I believe that those values lead to long term global peace and stability - which should be the goal.

Perhaps soft power is the way to do this - but I'd be curious to see an example of where soft power actually worked in changing a foreign country's policies.

[QUOTE=Paul VJK]Our dear President just signed (I believe) the Cuban bill entitled: "Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba" - which by the way, will do nothing to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. Of course he may just choose the titles to fool those stupid neo-cons.[/QUOTE]President Quakhunter just signed his own "Promoting free travel to Cuba for Mongers to stimulate hookers" bill. Which WILL stimulate hookers and, most importantly, El Presidente Quakhunter.

Viva la Prostitucion!

Black Shirt and Paul VJK:

No it does not mean when we are "wrong" we are still "right" since that is a matter of your perspective and value set (something "countries" don't have) it means we do what is in the best interest of the United States. If that permits us to push the ideals of "democracy" and "human rights" from OUR PROSPECTIVE that is fine, but remember is from OUR PROSPECTIVE which is a prospective not shared by others in the world. The United States has to survive as a country to do this so that brings us back to self interest to survive and not perish as a country.

News Flash, former Cuban president Fidel Castro has just published a condemnation of the Carmel One's MISUNDERSTANDING of President Raoul Castro's statements regarding Cuban officials being ready to sit and talk about "everything", Raoul meant he will talk about our problems since Cuba does not have any. Fidel also stated they were not going to reduce the 10% fee they charge for funds transfers from the United States to Cuba as it is fair since the US is the repressor of Cuba due to the current embargo. As far as releasing political prisoners, they don't have any political prisoners only criminals and they will remain in jail where they belong.

Well so much for "feel good" diplomacy

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Black Shirt and Paul VJK:

News Flash, former Cuban president Fidel Castro has just published a condemnation of the Carmel One's MISUNDERSTANDING of President Raoul Castro's statements regarding Cuban officials being ready to sit and talk about "everything", Raoul meant he will talk about our problems since Cuba does not have any. Fidel also stated they were not going to reduce the 10% fee they charge for funds transfers from the United States to Cuba as it is fair since the US is the repressor of Cuba due to the current embargo. As far as releasing political prisoners, they don't have any political prisoners only criminals and they will remain in jail where they belong.

Well so much for "feel good" diplomacy[/QUOTE]As the saying goes: "Old dog doesn't learn new tricks". And as Exon would say: "The C. sucker".

[QUOTE=QuakHunter]President Quakhunter just signed his own "Promoting free travel to Cuba for Mongers to stimulate hookers" bill. Which WILL stimulate hookers and, most importantly, El Presidente Quakhunter.

Viva la Prostitucion![/QUOTE]The next time we are in BsAs at the same time your first beer is on me. Few people on this forum are able to argue ideas without making them personal and respecting the right of the person you disagree with to believe as they do. In addition I respect how you discuss differing political views while keeping them in perspective and remember there are many things in life MUCH more important.

Viva la Prostitucion!

[QUOTE=Whiskas]As the saying goes: "Old dog doesn't learn new tricks". And as Exon would say: "The C. Sucker".[/QUOTE]If you're going to quote him it has to be accurate.

It's "cok suker" "muther fuker" or "cok suking muther fuker"